Hi All,
Norm wrote:
<<Perhaps this is heresy within this list, but I'd be interested to hear if
others feel
that, *assuming similar familiarity with some other brand*, are there really
all that
many pictures that in their field or style of photography they might never
have
achieved?>>
I have owned, and still own, a number of different systems. In the past I
have used both Nikon and Canon EOS equipment, and recognize (as Doris points
out) that fast autofocus and high-end evaluative meters enable one to get a
higher percentage of usable photographs under some circumstances than one
might get with, say, an OM-1n. The better Canon lenses, especially, are
remarkably sharp with good color rendition. Overall, I could have made 90%
of my photographs quite well with any good brand of camera.
But there's that other 10%. And the difference often has as much to do with
my style of picture taking as anything qualitatively different in the
optics. I find that when carrying an OM camera, I am a more contemplative
shooter than with, say, an EOS 1n. This is not the fault of the camera!
However, I seem to get a higher percentage of "hits" from a session with my
OMs than I did with the Canons. This includes, especially, landscape and
architectural photography.
As I believe I mentioned in a previous post, the M-Leica very high speed
lenses are exceptional, and can also get that photograph in "available
darkness" where few other lenses can go. I also use the Zuiko 50mm f1.2 for
this reason, and find it a remarkable lens, too.
Will von Dauster
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|